Why The Right Has No Common Ground With The Left And Can Never Be At Peace Or Truce

Why The Right Has No Common Ground With The Left And Can Never Be At Peace Or Truce With Them​

By Jack Flash
07/12/2015

​

“All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” – George Orwell​

Excerpted from Daniel Greenfield’s piece at Sultan Knish:
(http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html)

There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it’s criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.

Liberals have a long history of being the left’s useful idiots. It’s only fair that libertarians get a turn.

Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them at their word.

Now they’re wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room.

After a few skirmishes, some fundraising and angry letters, the accommodationists will find ways to accommodate that and we can look forward to conservative activists eagerly crowing about the first gay Republican presidential candidate around say, 2024, and the first Republican man in a dress in the Senate around the same time.

(Excerpt)

Read more:
http://patdollard.com/2015/07/why-t...and-can-never-be-at-peace-or-truce-with-them/


The Progressive Socialist Left does not care about homosexual rights, equality, religion or the environment. If you believe they do, all you have to do is see how many Leftists favor Muslim countries. Haven't they split their campaign passions between gay marriage and defending ISIL's expansion and their brutality against gays, Christians and enslavement of women.
Remember. the USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Even now Putin carries out the same precepts. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hates both gays and blacks. The ACLU backs the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a Democratic Party KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.

Name a Progressive leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practices it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...oXrUD-zurohuvUqLtt4VjjNAXL3Rr1fOs2L8QvXi5GPIg

​

 

As a leftie, I can tell you the both of us hate ISIS.

 

I'm a leftie and I can tell you, no actual democratic socialist progressive believes any of those things. Also, just so you know, none of those so called communist countries were either communist or socialist.

 

I am an I dependent and I see the US would be much better off if there were zero lefties in government office.

 

Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms. -- Aristotle

The 'Failure' of Communism: a 'Fall' narrative | Philosophers ...
http://philosophersforchange.org/2014/10/28/the-failure-of-communism-a-fall-narrative/
Oct 28, 2014 - by Roland Boer Communism has 'failed', or so the common ... Neither communist nor capitalist in any conventional sense, it is in a period never .... of the working people of all countries into a World Socialist Soviet Republic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Socialism's Broken Promises -
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/4687-socialisms-broken-promises
Dec 25, 2008 - Its history, marked by failed societies and brutal dictatorships, is quite literally ... Although it cannot be said that all socialist countries are communist, it is safe to say ... The false promise of a Utopian classless society free from ...

 

And they say Obama is the divisive one...

 

You socialists have been fighting amongst yourselves over the definition of socialism/communism since before the French revolution. Then the reign of terror started, which eventually found some of the leaders of the revolution waiting their turn at the national razor. Lenin and Stalin vehemently disagreed with each other over what it means before Stalin started killing everybody during the great purge. Zedong did the same thing, as did Pol Pot, uncle Ho, Mussolini, Hitler, Castro...

I think we all get the gist of what socialism/communism means by now. It means whenever you guys start hearing the rocky theme music, it's time to relocate.

 

Nope, always meant the same thing, there has been a lot of improvements. The right has just sat back and completely disregarded the evolution of the philosophy for the last 100 years. All those guys were idiots and none of them advocated socialism save Lenin. Bunch of capitalists in disguise if you ask me. All the OP proves is that the revolutionary method is a failure.

 

You obviously missed my point. Most people don't care about the technicalities and subtle differences with socialism or communism that you guys argue about amongst yourselves. It inevitably involves a lot of violence and misery because in the end, it is about hatred, jealousy, envy, and thievery. And even when you do get what you want, be it in communist russia or communist jonestown, the end result is always the same.

Maybe if you guys were to invest more in bodybags for yourselves, and less in time worrying about what other people have...

 

Oh, I see so now social cooperation is now all about hatred, jealousy, envy, and thievery. No, we just have different motivators. Competition is not really that important for lefties. It's a secondary. Cooperation and actual achievement is more important. Lefties would say the same thing about conservatives because they are more individualist so of course to accomplish things hatred has to come into play. So does thievery, and jealousy, and envy. No the differences are very well defined. There is no argument between us. The only argument between leftists is the best combination of cooperation and individualism for a great society. It seems that you worry far too much about your individual accomplishments, than the bigger picture. And the more you use comparisons like the soviet union when trying to describe socialism, the more we laugh, because no socialist would want to live under a totalitarian state. The closer to anarchism the better.

 

You forgot to mention the violence and death that comes from your social cooperation. You think those socialist cities are just teeming over with brotherly love, thanks to flagrant violations of the second amendment?

As for laughing at the mere thought that no socialist would want to live under a totalitarian state, you seem to be forgetting that you guys don't have a choice in the matter. If you leave, your comrades will kill you.

But that comes after you've got your fearless leader. Then the killing starts in earnest.

 

What are you even talking about? Now you mention the second amendment? Those are liberal cities and fail because of various bipartisan reasons. I have no problem with the second amendment. Nothing you are saying even has any bearing on reality. Totalitarian states opposed socialism in all it's forms. You clearly have no understanding of what socialism actually is. Too much fascist propaganda for you.

 

No, the democrats own the major cities, so there are no problems with bipartisanship.

You can keep claiming that there is only one form of socialism, and all those other failed attempts weren't the end result of socialism all you want. The reality is that you're all the same. Just a bunch of communists arguing with each other over what the definition of 'is' is.

 

Actually, northern industrial cities took a beating when the jobs went overseas. Doesn't really have anything to do with socialism. Outside of various taxes - sales, tobacco, alcohol, etc. - cities are limited in the "socialist" policies they can enact, anyway. Attracting business has become a game of "who gives the most attractive tax incentives," which would seem socialistic to me. They all play this game; Democrat and Republican alike.

 

No they aren't, they are the opposite of what actual progressives want. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production. There is no argument there.

No-one in the western world is arguing over the "right type of socialism". The definition has always been the same. The thing which is argued is how to make the transition from purely free market capitalism and the best kind of government type which best compliments socialism. There is barely any argument anymore. The soviet union tried the revolutionary method and did not democratize, hence it failed. The rest of Europe after WW2 tried the evolutionary method, along with a constitution, and a decentralized democracy, and it was successful.

The right (and you) in the US attempts to conflate the economic system with the form of government used to make the transition to socialism. So you again and again spout nonsense about the state and planned economy failures and the glorious leader committing genocide, but those are just examples of the government type which did these things in the name of "socialism" to get the peoples attention, when in fact those leaders had little to no socialist principles in mind. As with capitalism, there are multiple systems of government which can run in tandem. You also fail to realize that many private businesses are socialist in the US where the workers own the business and have a say in their own production. Social democracy in the states would advocate states rights in order to decentralize so that as many could have a say in how social policies are enacted and make sure all parts of the nation have equal opportunity to work (universal education and healthcare), and enact efficient social reforms to protect worker rights and democratize the workplace.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Also, communism is a completely different thing and has little to do with socialism. You can refer to state socialism as communism I suppose if you want, but please learn what it actually means at least.

 

There are, of course, certain realities that no amount of socialist ideology can surmount. That's why China started opening up their special economic zones in order to attract business from overseas, as well as being the only reason they haven't completely annexed Hong Kong.

This doesn't mean they like to do that. You know the howls of anger whenever the subject of walmart comes up. All of a sudden, walmart is taking advantage of their system of social welfare by refusing to pay a "living wage". They've tried forcing them to do that, like in Washington DC, but walmart flipped them the free market finger and told them they'd take their jobs and go home.

Socialists have to deal with the real world, like everybody else. It's just that they don't like it.

 

Although I am a staunch Conservative the cure for job exportation is to cut taxes first. Secondly, if that doesn't work I would tax the foreign made goods to the extent that it would no longer be beneficial for them to export jobs. I would also eliminate almost all H1B visas.

 

What?

Are you saying that they should like it?

Socialists of europe have been dealing with the real world for a long time, and have been veru successful at it.

In fact its the capitalists of the world who have singularly failed to address the real needs of a majority of the worlds population. The socialists have done so. All youve managed to do is encourage the aggrandisement of resources for those in the right position.

- - - Updated - - -

Would you like to see a world race to the bottom in tax rates as corps go from nation to nation?

 

They should love and embrace the free market.

Socialism isn't the real world. It's a tax collector with a gun saying "pay your taxes, or we'll put a hurt on you". That's not the real world. That's called "stealing" and even five year old kids know that is wrong.

We just look at things differently. The needs of others are not my concern. You look at it as if they are your concern, but I'm betting that anybody that doesn't like your idea is gonna find one of those armed thieves knocking on his door.

That's your idea of a virtuous government. Not mine.

 

Why not tax all goods coming into the country until nobody that isn't manufacturing inside the country can afford to trade with America? Then you get a trade war going on, and pretty soon you've got everybody working making everything from clothing to automobiles, to flat screen TVs, to barbie dolls?

The longshoremen might be out of a good job, but everybody else will be working.

 

Orwell was a leftist turned rightist. He started off left until Communism turned into a huge failure wherever it was applied. 1984 was clearly an attack on big government coming from the left. Ingsoc (the regime the protagonist lived under was short for "English socialism"). Its enemies were also leftists (neo-Bolsheviks).

Liberals and libertarians are all leftists. They aren't "useful tools" of the left, they are the left.

Leftists think they can use/convert Islam. They don't agree with it in any fundamental way with the exception of universalism/globalism. They vote the same way based on a common hatred of the society around them, hence how social leftists can agree with Muslims who oppose them on every social goal. Both of them fear rightist resurgence.

Socialism is nothing more than a dysgenic, parasitic ideology that appeals to the very lowest of society, pursued for entirely selfish reasons (e.g. What can I get out of society)? Other individuals have no need for wealth redistribution, and the more productive they are, the more they will oppose it.

Lenin referred to those intellectual types who supported the social goals of Communism (without the economic goals) as "useful idiots". They were simply people who the real Communists laughed at as they foolishly worked to build an ideology that had no place for them. Pol Pot put them all in fields after taking over in 1975, and wiped them out later.

 

The ISIS supporting leftists you make reference to are mythical. They're strawmen.

Furthmore: The USSR was pretty awful, yeah. I'm a queer anarcho-communist, I have no fondness for homophobia or authoritarianism. But even many modern Stalinists, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and Trotskyists support gay rights.

Lastly: It's really hypocritical of you to condemn ISIS while supporting the mass suppression of queer people. You're just a more palatable version of ISIS, waiting until you get the opportunity to be just as homicidal without the fear of retribution. You're the Christian taliban. You share the same ideals, you just don't believe that Muhammad was a prophet.

 

If you do not like socialism or communism then stop supporting capitalism, because those systems grow out of the injustice of capitalism. Capitalism creates poverty and the environment where people will support socialism.

 

Hmm..., What do you know about me? Kindly show factually that I support the "suppression of queer people". If you believe that modern Stalinists, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists and Trotskyites support gay rights, why is it that Putin and his regime do the opposite as you claim?

'Hunted' Gays of Putin's Russia: Vicious Vigilantes and State
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...us-vigilantes-and-state-bigotry-close-up.html
Oct 6, 2014 - Yekaterina, a teacher, says she feels compelled to fight for gay rights ... Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia is on HBO tonight (Monday, ... Targeted on all sides by thugs, the Kremlin, and the Orthodox Church, Russian LGBTs face a desperate situation...
~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Because putin is on the right socially, not on the left.